Upload
doreen-mcgee
View
220
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CONSTRUCTING REGIONAL CO2 FLUXES USING FLUX-TOWER UPSCALING AND
ATMOSPHERIC BUDGETS
Results from the Chequamegon Ecosystem-Atmosphere Study (ChEAS) and beyond
K.J. Davis1
A.E. Andrews2, J.A. Berry3, P.V. Bolstad4, M.P. Butler1, J. Chen5, B.D. Cook4, A.R. Desai1, A.S. Denning6, F.A. Heinsch7, B.R. Helliker8, N.L. Miles1, A.
Noormets5, D.M. Ricciuto1, S.J. Richardson1, M. Uliasz6, W. Wang9
1Dept. of Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University; 2Global Monitoring and Division, NOAA; 3Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington; 4Dept. of Forest Resources,
University of Minnesota; 5Dept. of Earth, Ecological and Environmental Sci, The University of Toledo; 6Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University; 7School of Forestry, University of
Montana; 8Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania; 9Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
LSCE, Gif-sur-Yvette, 7 March, 2006
outline• History and goals• Flux tower measurements
– Tall tower flux measurements– Regional upscaling– Model-data synthesis with flux measurements
• Atmospheric boundary layer continuous CO2 measurements– Atmospheric profiling– Atmospheric budgets
• Future directions– Enhanced regional upscaling and the ‘ring of towers’– Prediction and detection– Continental-scale measurements and inversions
Pho
to c
redi
t:
UN
D C
itatio
n cr
ew,
CO
BR
A
WLEF tall tower (447m)CO2 and H2O flux measurements at: 30, 122 and 396 mCO2 mixing ratio measurements at: 11, 30, 76, 122, 244 and 396 m
WLEF flux and mixing ratio observatory
History
• NOAA tall tower program begins, 1992(?). Pieter Tans and Peter Bakwin.
• WLEF tower instrumented to measure CO2 mixing ratios, 1994.
• WLEF tower instrumented to measure CO2 fluxes, 1995. Davis and Bakwin.
• “You have the perfect site…” Denning.• Many complementary studies are initiated
in the “footprint” of the WLEF tower, 1997.
Goals of the ChEASAt hourly to multi-year time scales, and regional
spatial scales:– Determine ecosystem-atmosphere fluxes of carbon
and water;– Determine the processes governing these fluxes;– Develop the capacity to predict how these fluxes will
change as climate changes.
Characterization of fluxes at regional scales requires advances in methodology.
The development of regional flux measurement methodology is a central focus of the ChEAS.
http://cheas.psu.edu
Methods
Flux of carbon across this plane= tower or aircraft flux approach
-
Change inforest biomassover time = forest inventory approach
Change in atmospheric concentration of CO2 overtime = inversion or ABL budget approach.
Change in CO2 concentration in a smallbox over time = chamber flux approach
Atmospheric approaches to observing the terrestrial carbon cycle
Ci
i
i
i Sx
CU
x
CU
t
C
''
Time rate ofchange (e.g. CO2)
Mean transport
Turbulenttransport (flux)
Source in theatmosphere
Average over the depth of the atmosphere (or the ABL):
0Cz
i
i
CC C
t x
FU
z
F
F0C encompasses all surface exchange: Oceans, deforestation,
terrestrial uptake, fossil fuel emissions.
Inversion study: Observe C, model U, derive FFlux study: Observe F directly
Methodological gap
Methodological gap
Upscaling
Downscaling
Airborne flux
Ch
am
be
r flu
x o
r e
xp p
lot
Tower flux
Forest inventory Inverse study
year
month
hour
day
Tim
e S
cale
Spatial Scale
(1m)2 = 10-4ha
(1000km)2 = 108ha
(100km)2 = 106ha
(10km)2 = 104ha
(1km)2 = 102ha
Rearth
Complementary nature of atmospheric inversions and flux upscaling
Atmospheric inversion Flux upscaling
Excellent spatial Intrinsically local integration measurements.
Strong constraint on Difficult to upscale fluxflux magnitude magnitudes due to
ecosystem complexity.
Poor temporal Excellent temporalresolution resolution
Limited process More processunderstanding. understanding
ChEAS observations
Tall tower with Fco2, [CO2] Radar and ceilometer ABL profiling[CO2] tower network Airborne and satellite remote sensingFlux tower network Chamber and sap flux measurementsAirborne [CO2] profiles Biometric measurementsFTIR column [CO2]
Powered parachute photograph: M. Jensen
View from 396m on the WLEF tower: OK Tower Service
Region: Flat, heterogeneous, forested, managed, rich in wetlands, low in humans
4 meter 30 meter 1 kilometer
I. Flux tower resultsTall tower flux measurements
Flux measurement method
' '
0
' '
0
0
zsC
zs
zs
Cstorage turbulent advection
Cstorage turbulent
CNEE dz wC
t
C C u CU W dz
x z x
NEE F F F
NEE F F
CCz NEEFcw 00''
Yi et al, 2000
Eddy-covariance methods summary
• Sonic axes are rotated into the long-term mean wind direction.
• Fast-response CO2 and H2O measurements calibrated from slow-response profile measurements.
• Long tubes are used to sample CO2 and H2O. Lag-time correction applied.
• Spectral correction for high-frequency loss applied. It is substantial for H2O fluxes.
• Integral of the cospectrum indicates 1 hour averaging time needed for 396 m flux measurement.
• Hourly random sampling errors are large.
One mustcapture the large and small eddies
Berger et al, 2001
Random errors – a finite number of eddies are counted in one hour
Random sampling errors for any one hour can be as large asthe magnitude of the measured flux!
Berger et al, 2001, following Lenschow and Stankov, 1986.
Radar ABL depth
WLEF fluxes
CO2 profile
Davis et al, 2003
Daily cycle of ABL depth, and CO2 fluxes and mixing ratios
“Preferred” NEE• Data is taken from 30m at night and 122 or 396m during the day (the
highest level where there is turbulent flow) when all data are available.
• If data are missing, any existing flux measurement is used.• Data are screened out when the level of turbulence is very low. CO2
is probably draining down hill.• Early in the morning upper level data from WLEF is replaced with
30m data (Yi et al, 2000) because the flow appears to be systematically 2-D.
• Thus from 3 NEE measurements, one “preferred” flux measurement is save for each hour. (But all flux levels and components are reported.)
• Some bias exists among flux measurement levels. Contribution to annual NEE is of the order of a few tens of gC m-2 yr-1 (Ricciuto et al, in review).
Nighttime drainage flows?
Coo
k et
al,2
004;
Dav
is e
t al
, 20
03
Loss of flux at low turbulence levelsat the Willow Creek tower.
WLEF morning advection?
• Compute Del-NEE among levels.
• Find a persistent signature of advection during the morning transition.
• Loss of storage is not offset by turbulent flux.
• Hypothesis: Venting of the nocturnal pool occurs elsewhere, at a persistent location in the landscape?
Yi et al, 2000, JGR.Due to storage term.
Storage terms are small.
Flux measurement method
' '
0
' '
0
0
zsC
zs
zs
Cstorage turbulent advection
Cstorage turbulent
CNEE dz wC
t
C C u CU W dz
x z x
NEE F F F
NEE F F
CCz NEEFcw 00''
Yi et al, 2000
Differences among levels at WLEF
• Grassy clearing is a significant part of daytime 30m footprint but not much of the 122m or 396m footprints.
• Difference between 30m and 122m implies that using 30m may cause daytime fluxes to be underestimated by 8-10%
• Daytime 396m fluxes 33% larger than 30m. Can’t explain 122-396 meter difference.
Davis et al, 2003; Wang et al, in press A and B; Ricciuto et al, in review
U* screening bias at the WLEF tower
• We use a u* cutoff value of 0.2 ms-1
• This screens about 50% of nighttime growing season data.
• Data indicates modest flux loss even with 0.2 cutoff.
Average annual NEE as a function of u* cutoff
U* cutoff (ms-1)
Ann
ual N
EE
(gC
m-2yr
-1)
1997-2001 average
Ricciuto et al, in review
Hourly fluxesat WLEF for1997, observedand filled.
Davis et al, 2003.
Net ecosystem-atmosphere exchange of CO2 in northern
Wisconsin
A net source of CO2 to the atmosphere!
…
year after year!
I. Flux tower resultsRegional upscaling
WLEF tall tower
wetland
mature hardwood
old growth
• Large differences in growing season fluxes among sites.
• Net annual source of CO2 to the atmosphere observed at WLEF, caused by large respiratory fluxes.
Desai et al, in press; Wang et al, in press A and B; Ricciuto et al, in review.
ChEAS observations
Tall tower with Fco2, [CO2] Radar and ceilometer ABL profiling[CO2] tower network Airborne and satellite remote sensingFlux tower network Chamber and sap flux measurementsAirborne [CO2] profiles Biometric measurementsFTIR column [CO2]
NEE (gC m-2)
Respiration (gC m-2)
Photosynthesis (gC m-2)
WLEF 1997 27 991 964
WLEF 1998 48 986 938
WLEF 1999 100 1054 954
WLEF 2000 74 1005 931
WLEF 2001 141 1067 926
WLEF average 78 1021 942
Willow Creek 2000 -347 762 1109
Willow Creek 2001 -108 741 849
Willow Creek 2002 -437 648 1085
Willow Creek average -297 717 1014
Lost creek 2001 1 759 758
Lost Creek 2002 -58 631 689
Lost Creek average -30 695 724
NEE and gross fluxes at ChEAS sites: 1997-2002
The difference appears to be large respiratory fluxes at WLEF
(evident in nighttime flux data)
Drying wetlands?Disturbance/logging?
Regional flux estimates• Upscaling
1. Aggregate stand-level flux tower measurements. Desai et al, in press, AgFMet.
2. Flux footprint decomposition using the WLEF tall tower.
Wang et al, in press, JTech, JGR.
• Atmospheric budget1. Traditional ABL budget using WLEF tall tower [CO2]
dataWang et al, submitted and in preparation
2. ABL-free troposphere CO2 mixing ratio differenceHelliker et al, 2004; Bakwin et al, 2004
3. Ring of towers, mesoscale inversionUliasz et al, under construction
WLEF 2003 May-Sept fluxes were “decomposed” using a flux footprint model, simple ecosystem model, and a six stand-type vegetation map.
-Forested wetlands, mature deciduous and young aspen are implicated as strong respiratory sources.
-Comparison of WLEF “mature deciduous” and Willow Creek fluxes suggest differences exist within this vegetation class.
(Wang et al, in press JTECH, JGR)
Stand-level tower upscaling• Twelve stand-level
flux measurements are matched to vegetation categories.
• Stand age since disturbance is a primary control on the long-term net carbon flux in the region
Desai et al, in press.
Landsat-based land cover map (WISCLAND) used for upscaling – 40x40 km2
4 meter 30 meter 1 kilometer
WLEF region bottom-up comparisons Jun-Aug 2003
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
NEE * -1 ER GEP
gC
m-2
Tall-tower Footprint weighted decomposition Multi-tower aggregation
•Comparison of two independent upscaling approaches is promising.•Uncertainty in each aggregate flux, however, is fairly large and difficult to quantify.
(Desai et al, in press, AFM; Wang et al, in press JTech, JGR)
Regional upscaling appears to work? Independent methods and data!
Forested wetlands and young aspen implicated as strong respiratory sources
Uncertainties in region upscaling:Flux footprint accuracy
Land cover classificationRepresentativeness of stand-level flux measurements
Systematic errors in eddy-covariance flux measurements
WLEF tall tower
wetland
mature hardwood
old growth
• Interannual variability in WLEF fluxes are statistically significant, and strongly correlated with climate (and, for 2001, insects).
• Multi-year record begins to suggest degree of coherence in interannual variability among sites.
Desai et al, 2005, in press; Ricciuto et al, in review.
Hypotheses: Temporal variability in NEE of CO2 is governed primarily by
climate and weather.
Site-to-site variability in NEE of CO2 is governed primarily by ecosystem properties.
Temporal variability in NEE is easier to upscale than, say, the summer regional value of NEE?
Plans:Apply parameter estimation to multiple towers over multiple
years. Test hypotheses.Assess applications to inverse modeling, carbon cycle
prediction.
II. Atmospheric boundary layer continuous CO2 measurements
Atmospheric profilingVTTs
seasonal phase lagsynoptic cycles
Atmospheric budgets
Diurnal cycle of CO2 in the ABL
Bak
win
et a
l, 19
98
Daily Mixing Ratio Profile from a Tall Tower
Midday difference in CO2 between the mid-CBL and the surface layer
If You Prefer Numbers…
Month CO2 (ppm) at 30m, midday
CO2 (ppm) at 396m, midday
CO2 (ppm) 30m-396m,
midday σ(396m-30m)
CO2 (ppm) at 396m, entire day
CO2 (ppm)396m(pm)
396m(entire)
1 373.15 372.53 0.62 1.60 372.46 0.07
2 375.34 374.57 0.78 1.72 373.96 0.60
3 372.91 372.69 0.22 0.85 372.73 -0.04
4 370.75 370.91 -0.16 0.22 371.23 -0.32
5 363.91 364.68 -0.77 0.94 366.21 -1.53
6 358.49 359.96 -1.47 1.58 362.54 -2.59
7 352.50 353.63 -1.13 0.98 354.59 -0.97
8 355.95 356.72 -0.77 0.93 356.85 -0.13
9 364.19 364.45 -0.26 0.64 364.76 -0.31
10 371.18 370.49 0.69 2.38 370.49 -0.0005
11 373.55 373.06 0.49 0.85 372.89 0.17
12 374.25 373.55 0.70 1.26 373.26 0.30
AnnualMean 367.18 367.27 -0.09 367.67 -0.40
Monthly Summary for 1998
Synoptic variability in CO2
What Is This Correction?
Following the mixed layer similarity theory of Wyngaard & Brost [1984] and Moeng & Wyngaard [1989], the vertical gradient of a scalar in the boundary layer:
0
* *
izb t
i i i i
wcwcC z zg g
z z w z z w z
where
gb and gt are bottom-up and top-down gradient functions scaled by boundary layer depth zi
w* is the convective velocity scale
wc0 and wczi are the surface and entrainment fluxes of the scalar C
The Gradient Functions
The LES gradient functions are from a study by Patton et al. [2003].
The observed gradient functions will be in Wang et al., [in prep].
Hourly 396 – 30 m CO2 difference Spring/Summer
What a surface layer observation is missing:
• Unlike a tall tower:– Nocturnal boundary layer profile is missing
(see Wang et al, in prep, budget estimates)
– Midday observations only (night very hard to interpret, though some are trying)
– Limited number of species observed (add flasks to VTTs?)
– Surface layer measurement adds bias, variance
(but not a great deal!)
Net ecosystem-atmosphere exchange of CO2 in northern
Wisconsin
Flux-CBL-FT phase lagCBL mixing ratio leads local NEE. (Davis et al, 2003; Yi et al, 2004)
Evidence of large-scale transport. (Hurwitz et al, 2004)
ABL-FT CO2 difference used to compute regional fluxes (Helliker et al, 2004).
Applied successfully to 4 flux tower sites by Bakwin et al (2004).
Regional-Scale InventoriesRegional-Scale Inventories
Simple observational approaches show signs of convergence
Uncertainties in methods are large
Plan:Enhance the upscaling approach.Deploy additional CO2 sensors.Reduce uncertainty in both approaches and
intercompare again.
“ring” of towers inversion
Tall tower with Fco2, [CO2] Radar and ceilometer ABL profiling[CO2] tower network Airborne and satellite remote sensingFlux tower network Chamber and sap flux measurementsAirborne [CO2] profiles Biometric measurementsFTIR column [CO2]
1200 UTCApril 29, 2004
CO2 from 5 sites, April 29, 2004
The Richardson-Miles Package
For more information, see www.amerifluxco2.psu.edu
Performance Testing
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
0
3
6
Day of Year
[CO
2] PSU
[C
O2] C
MD
L (ppm
)
a
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 2400.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
Day of Year
[CO
2] PSU
[C
O2] C
MD
L (ppm)
b
Difference between the PSU system and WLEF 76m CO2 measurements in a test from April-August 2004. [Miles/Richardson/Uliasz, in prep.]
Difference of daily averages
See http://www.amerifluxco2.psu.edu for calibrated CO2 at AmeriFlux sites
Ring of towers,Summer 2004
Ideas for research next fall
• Consider how (when?) to merge flux and mixing ratio measurements in a single inversion.
• Study the spatial and temporal coherence of flux (and mixing ratio?) observations, and consider the implications for inverse flux estimates and observational network design.
• Evaluate the ability of forwards models of CO2 transport to resolve, e.g., seasonal and synoptic events.
– Region?– Continent?
Acknowledgements
Department of Energy Terrestrial Carbon Processes Program
National Institutes for Global Environmental Change Midwestern Regional Center, DoE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Global Programs
National Science Foundation Division of Environmental Biology
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Terrestrial Ecology Program
Instruments at WLEF
Ber
ger
et a
l, 20
01
Instruments at WLEF• Two “profiling” LI-CORs in the trailer, one sampling
396m, one cycling among all 6 levels. “Slow” time response. High-precision and accuracy calibration (Bakwin et al, 1998). C-bar.
• Vaisala humidity and temperature sensors at 3 levels (30, 122 and 396m). “Slow” Q-bar, T-bar.
• Three sonic anemometers (30, 122 and 396m). w’, T’• Three LI-CORs in the trailer, one for each sonic level.
“Fast” time response. Long tubes, big pumps. Measure CO2 and H2O. c’, q’
• Two LI-CORs on the tower (122 and 396m). “Fast” time response. Short tubes, smaller pumps.
Calibration of “fast” CO2 and H2O sensors at ChEAS towers
• Calibration occurs using the fluctuations in the ambient atmospheric CO2 and H2O mixing ratios.
• “Slow” sensors provide absolute values of these mixing ratios used to calibrate the “fast” LI-CORs.
• Ideal gas law corrections to LI-COR cell temperature, pressure and humidity are applied.
• Calibration slope and intercept are derived every 2 days. These values are smoothed (monthly running mean) to derive the long-term calibration factors used for the “fast” LI-CORs.
Calibration of “fast” CO2 and H2O sensors
Ber
ger
et a
l, 20
01
What’s up? (Sonic rotations)
• Sonic anemometers are oriented perfectly in the vertical, (and the wind’s “streamlines” aren’t always perpendicular to gravity).
• Data is collected over a long time (about a year) and we define “up” by forcing the mean vertical wind speed to be zero.
Sonic rotations
Ber
ger
et a
l, 20
01
Lag time calculation• We must correct for the delay between the CO2 and H2O
measurements and the vertical velocity measurements.• Lag time is determined by finding the maximum in the lagged
covariance between vertical velocity and CO2/H2O for every hour.
Level (m) IRGA position
Tube length (m)
Lag time (s)
Tube inner diameter (m)
Flow rate (L min-1)
Reynolds number
396 Trailer 406 87 0.009 17.8 2640
122 Trailer 132 23 0.009 21.9 3250
30 Trailer 40 16 0.009 9.5 1420
396 Tower 5 1.7 0.0032 1.4 592
122 Tower 5 1.1 0.0032 2.2 915
Ber
ger
et a
l, 20
01
Lag time calculation
Ber
ger
et a
l, 20
01
Spectral corrections• Flow through tubes smears out some of the atmospheric
fluctuations, especially the small (high frequency) eddies.– Obvious for H2O. Much worse than theory predicts.– Not directly observed for CO2. Small effect.
• The sonic anemometer (virtual) temperature measurement is not smeared out, so we use similarity between the virtual temperature spectrum and the water vapor spectrum to correct for the loss of high frequency eddies in H2O.
• We use past studies of flow in tubes to correct for the loss of high frequency eddies in CO2.
Spectral corrections
Ber
ger
et a
l, 20
01
CO2
H2O
Tv
Spectral corrections
Level (m)
IRGA position
CO2 (day)
CO2 (night)
H2O
396 Trailer 1 7 16
122 Trailer 1.5 9 19
30 Trailer 5 12 21
396 Tower <0.1 1 13
122 Tower <0.1 1 11
Table shows the typical % of flux lost due to smearing of small eddies.
Ber
ger
et a
l, 20
01